Jenn says there are a dozen or so sites that state 'unverified' in the description. These were sites that were originally on Movin Sue's GPS list but were not easily found via a web search. At one point, they were valid sites, but we have not been able to completely validate them as well as we'd like.

My personal take on it is this… I'd rather have a potential site to check out when we're passing through than no idea that something may be nearby unless we physically canvas the entire area.

There are currently close to 700 sites that have been posted since mid December. Every one of these is 'unverified' by the majority of the target audience. We are no more able to physically visit every site than anyone else would be. The best we can manage is to put up what we believe the correct information to be and allow users to comment.

As for visitor's centers… we were at one a couple of months ago in Natchez, MS and were told 'you can stay as long as you like'. If there is good reason to believe a visitor center allows overnight parking (such as a contributor posting it here), I'd allow it.

I know there is one specific visitor center which was posted and later had an 'official' comment that it did not allow overnight parking. However, the official comment also pointed out a nearby park that did allow camping. As such, the post + comment is still useful and until someone gets around to entering the alternate area, the original post is more useful than nothing.

That's just my take on it. Please feel free to read descriptions of campsites and simply ignore things that don't interest you. Better yet, if you know the information somewhere is incorrect, please leave a comment on the individual post. We see all comments. Whether the post gets changed or not, your feedback will still be read and visible to the community.

johnny